Did Iran surrender to President Bush or Appeasing US Democrats in Iraq?

By gamecock Posted in Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Major General Simmons, the deputy commanding general of the Multinational Corps in Iraq, reports astounding news:

Iran halting weapons flow, general says

BAGHDAD - Iran appears to be honoring an informal pledge to halt the smuggling of explosives and other weapons into Iraq, contributing to a drop of bombings by nearly a half since March, a senior US general said yesterday.

"We have not seen any recent evidence that weapons continue to come across the border into Iraq," Major General James Simmons said. "We believe that the initiatives and the commitments that the Iranians have made appear to be holding up."

Events over the last several months:

US officials met privately with Iranian officials and remarked afterward that they told Iran that they would not tolerate continued Iranian involvement via Quds force personnel and IED and other weapons transfers to Iraqi insurgents.

Nine Iranian Quds forces assisting Iraqi insurgents were captured and detained in Iraq.

General Petraeous testified that Iran was responsible for attacks against US forces in Iraq.

President Bush, Republican legislators and GOP presidential candidates (and a few Democrats) labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (incl Quds) a terrorist organization.

Fred Thompson described the acts of the Iranians in Iraq as acts of war against the US.

Finally, Democratic Party leaders in Congress and all of their presidential candidates advocated legislation that would declare that President Bush may not launch a military attack against Iran absent the consent of congress.

I wonder which of the above convinced Iran to surrender in Iraq?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
FRED08

... the funding bill Bush vetoed until he got the one he wanted, demonstrated to the Iranians that the Democrat Congress was not in charge. President Bush also showed he wasn't going to stop fighting either.

These things showed the Iranians that there strategy of making a mess of Iraq would force us out did not work. Gen. Petraeus' strategy change tipped the scales to force the Iranians into backing off.

I also believe that there was some "behind closed doors" diplomacy in conjunction with the face to face meetings we had with the Iranians also played a part in convincing them to give it up too.

However, the bigger over arching point is that we may have won this counter-insurgency battle with this one development (the Iranians weapons flow being cut off). Once it is combined with the turn around in Anbar province, and we are now talking to the more reasonable elements of the Mahdi Army to do what we did to turn the insurgents to our side like we did in Anbar.

The slide to success can only be stopped by the Democrat Congress cutting off funding now. The sad fact of the matter is that they may just do it. All they have to do is nothing. They are excelling at that right now.

It would trigger a massive debacle if they carry through with it. The only good that would come of it is the destruction of the Democrat party for decades to come. However, as much as I would like to see the Democrats do that to themselves, it is not worth the cost, and I do not think they would commit party suicide willingly. However, they may be too blind or stupid to realize they are doing it to themselves until it is too late I am afraid.

Gosh, the "what if's" can give a person a headache!

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

in sheeps clothing. Are they taking the heat off of themselves to further their nuclear objective? Betcha!

Fred08

No doubt that Iran took notice at the abject ineffectiveness of Russian "state of the art" air defense systems protecting the Syrian nuke plant, and recalculated their situation. Meanwhile Iran and Syria are on hold with Putin's ADA customer service line, wondering if the warranty covers aircraft detection software upgrades.

I could only imagine the phone prompts..."If your air space was penetrated, press 1. If you are being bombed by aircraft not your own, press 2..."

"I can say - not as a patriotic bromide...that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and...the only moral country in the history of the world. - Ayn Rand

Always a sure sign things are not going well. Course if you are being bombed by your own aircraft, that might also be a sign that things are not going well.

Somewhere around here is an Armed Forces Automated Answering Service piece...

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

I just read an article in the Australian about the anti-war left. A snippet:

The sad fact is that for most of the anti-war Left, the only thing that matters is delivering a defeat to the Bush administration, and in achieving that end the Iraqi people are expendable. John Pilger said in January 2004 that while he didn't like the "terrible civilian atrocities" committed by what he called "the resistance", "the outcome of this resistance is terribly important for the rest of the world" and that only a defeat in Iraq of the US "military machine" and the Bush administration would make our world secure. As Christopher Hitchens wrote despairingly in 2005 of his erstwhile friends on the Left, while there is plenty of support for debt relief and making poverty history in Africa, there isn't a single drop of solidarity and compassion left over for the people of Iraq.

The anti-war, anti-American Left should be ashamed, but precisely for this reason they continue to look away when Iraq doesn't fail in the way they wish. The success of the surge has become their inconvenient truth.

Thank you Australia for an online newspaper I can read without wanting to retch afterward.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

GC,

You actually had me laughing out loud at your last question... nicely written.

Recommended.

How every foreign event must be framed in domestic American politics.

IMO, this is what is bogging us down. Instead of discussing what we should do next both sides, I am sure, will trumpet how their actions made Iran blink and how the other side hindered them.

There are numerous reasons why Iran would cease arm shipments into Iraq. Some of them good for us and some of them pretty bad for us. Before we start patting ourselves on the back we should at least try and determine the reasons for Iran's actions and determine a sound policy going forward.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

According to many (including Democrat leadership)the President has caused everything from (domestic) hurricanes and wildfires to (global) terrorism, war crimes, AGW, and high oil prices.

Why stop now?

Oh, wait a second, this might be good news.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service